Rolling Stones post Abkco CDs: 2009 Remasters, Virgin Remasters or Original CBS CDs?

I voted virgin and didn't comment. I'm sure others did the same. I know some people like the CBS, but I don't. I find them to be extremely muddy in the bottom end compared to the virgins, and I think that the virgins were better mastered for CD than the CBS issues.

 

Interesting! Are you one who thinks that none of the CD versions are close to how good the vinyl versions sound? I ask due to the "...better mastered for CD then the CBS issues." I am a CD guy but not because of any sound quality preference based on comparisons. I grew up listening to tapes and switched to CD's in the late 80's.

 

Some of those CBS ones sound like DCCs ...

 

I own both vinyl and CD for all titles of the post ABKCO catalogue from Sticky Fingers through Undercover. I think the virgins are the most like the original vinyl. I don't necessarily prefer one medium over the other, I think each has it's place. I think for the Stones, the 2002 ABKCO SACD hybrids and the 94 Virgins are all you really need to enjoy the entire catalogue. If you want the BEST possible sound, and alternate mixes, there are a couple west german london CDs from the 80's that you can pick up in addition to the ABKCOs. I don't think that picking up the CBS issues or the 2009 remasters are necessary if you already own the Virgins, though.

 

Which ones?

 

I have the Virgins and have always enjoyed them but that's all I have heard.

 

Yep, and the CBS CDs are probably not going to be any great revelation in sound if you already think the Virgins sound good. If the Virgins don't sound good to your ears, you might want to try the CBS versions. Personally, I owned the CBS versions first, and always felt they sounded wrong to my ears. I got the Virgins, and had no problems. I don't have the desire to buy the entire set of the 09 remasters, I have heard them, and they don't float my boat. I'd probably only reccomend them if you listen to most of your music on headphones in crowded or busy areas.

 

I still play the original cbs cds, but some require you turn up the bass.
They don't sound too "hot" though, which is why I like them.
Give me relaxed sounding cds anyday.

 

Some girls
Black and Blue
Sticky Fingers
It's only rock 'n' roll

I thought Virgin dropped the ball on those, for the most part.

 

Thanks!

 

Also Tattoo You ...

Forget It's Only Rock'n' roll. Just listened. But Goat's Head Soup should be on the list.

 

I gotta add Emotional Rescue to the list. The song Emotional Rescue on CBS/RS Records sounds phenomenal.

 

To me, the majority means nothing. All of my polls are public because I feel that the relevant info is who chose the CBS and who chose the Virgin. If a dozen people who often agree with me on masterings chose the CBS (and they did), then that's the mastering I'd want to try out. And vice versa. There's no overall right or wrong here, just what's right/wrong for you.

 

Just a quick question here. On the 1994 Virgin remasters, I notice that the date '1994' appears nowhere on the packaging or the CD itself. Is this correct? In my paranoid fashion, I'm thinking I have bad merchandise. As we all know, sometimes CDs/packaging will have the year the CD was actually issued on it with a note saying 'original recording released in ....'

Please confirm for me and thanks in advance...

 

I am almost certain that if it says Virgin, you got a 1994, the Ludwig remaster. The earlier ones were CBS or Rolling Stones Records. The later ones were put out by UMe.

 

That should be the way all CDs on this forum are talked about or recommended, sadly most of them are not.

 

You mean to tell me-if you like how a particular version of a cd sounds-you must compare it with every known realised version in the free world(maybe with waveforms) before you can offer an opinion? You have to be joking!

 

If you've nothing to compare it with, do NOT vote...unless there's some sort of option. It makes perfect sense.

 

Well,I've heard some of the cbs cds Have owned a few of the Virgins and now own some of the 2009 remasters (Japanese SHM) versions.I kind of prefer the 2009 versions (without comparing waveforms) soooo-I voted for them.What's wrong with that exactly?

 

I never said there was anything wrong that

I'm saying that IF someone has only heard one particular version/pressign of a cd, they shouldn't say that perfer it if they've not thing to compare it to. That's rather skewed.

 

I guess then I shouldn't be voting cause all the '09 masterings I have/heard are as Japanese SHM versions not standard versions

 

NO, you've every right because the 2009 option doesn't say from what territory

 

I didn't vote as I only own the original ABKCO's and the CBS disc save for Beggars Banquet which is London and Exile which is Virgin. I always thought The Stones LPs which I have all the London's and RS Records were all kinda muddy anyway. I've never felt the CDs were much of an improvement sound wise over the LPs. I listen to the CDs for convenience more than any thing else. You would think that each time the CDs get an "upgrade" the sound would be better but obviously from what I read here on a daily basis that is definitely not the case in SHForumland.

 

you mean, "...that is definitely not the case."

 

After recently purchasing the '94 Virgin of Some Girls, I find myself not liking the sound. Does anyone else think it sounds dull, sort of distant and hollow? I'm not sure if that is the correct description of what I'm hearing...it just doesn't sound that great to me.

Does anyone seriously recommend buying the '09 remaster of Some Girls?